5 ms·

Somehow I watched 1 or 2 videos on twitter right at the time, and got a good sense of what happened, that ended up being consistent with the jury ruling. These

Somehow I watched 1 or 2 videos on twitter right at the time, and got a good sense of what happened, that ended up being consistent with the jury ruling. These weren't even political posts, just some OSINT people I follow. I was not aware of any "misleading media narrative," since I don't consume any mainstream media outside of occasional twitter posts. Once the trial started I was actually very surprised how many people had zero clue what really happened, yet had strong opinions one way or the other. This decision by Facebook probably does reverse something that was a mistake in some vague, ethical sense, but I disagree with the characterization that Facebook should be responsible for people's personal worldviews. You can't just give up all personal responsibility to Facebook and then complain when they do bad things with that power. They made a decision for business and legal reasons and we can criticize them from a business or legal perspective, but the narrative that "Facebook should have known better and it's their fault that people were misinformed" is just odd to me. It feels like a "have your cake and eat it too" situation with personal responsibility for being informed about the world.

baryphonic 5y ago
Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your side of the story, one which is highly persuasive. Yet this is actively suppressed on the town square of today, Facebook and Twitter. You aren't even allowed to raise funds on platforms like GoFundMe. As a result, the general public's first impression of your story is never challenged, and it becomes accepted as truth, despite being blatantly false. Does Facebook have no obligation, even if only a moral one, to let you at least defend your own reputation when it allows literal defamation about you to be published unmolested?
- Benjammer 5y ago
  Was this suppressed on Twitter? What about the NYT publishing an objective analysis of the situation? Aren't we discussing Facebook, specifically, here? In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Facebook is orders of magnitude larger.
  - spurgu 5y ago
    To be political, this has more implications on the censorship in general. So what if one censors/distorts more than the other One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.
  - baryphonic 5y ago
    There have been reports of people banned from Twitter for tweeting e.g. "Rittenhouse did nothing wrong." [0][1] > In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook? I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog? My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of. In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth." [0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-for-saying-kyle-rittenhouse-did-nothing-wrong-after-his-acquittal/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo... [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle-rittenhouse-tweet-glorifying-violence https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...
burlesona 5y ago
Having a strong opinion based on zero knowledge is like American politics 101.
- Benjammer 5y ago
  I mean, yeah. Doesn't make it reasonable. You can either argue it's unreasonable or argue that Facebook should behave "ethically" here, I don't think you can have both. It seems like people want Facebook to help everyone to have a strong opinion based on zero knowledge, but they want everyone to have the "correct" opinion. I think social media doesn't give people "the wrong opinion," I think it gives people opinions in general when they shouldn't have any.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  I remember a professor with a book he was going to publish in the 1950s and the dock worker who was doing immigration saw it and said “Nobody is gonna read that”. He thought it was very funny that all Americans have an opinion on everything. People also did read it.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
On the flip side facebook absolutely should be able to control what's on their platform as a private company. You can't have it both ways. They have freedom of speech as well as to the right to control their property and do business with whom they choose. I can't stop someone from spouting nonsense on the public sidewalk in front of my store, but if they try it inside my store then I can absolutely kick them out.

baryphonic 5y ago

Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your side of the story, one which is highly persuasive. Yet this is actively suppressed on the town square of today, Facebook and Twitter. You aren't even allowed to raise funds on platforms like GoFundMe. As a result, the general public's first impression of your story is never challenged, and it becomes accepted as truth, despite being blatantly false. Does Facebook have no obligation, even if only a moral one, to let you at least defend your own reputation when it allows literal defamation about you to be published unmolested?

Benjammer 5y ago
Was this suppressed on Twitter? What about the NYT publishing an objective analysis of the situation? Aren't we discussing Facebook, specifically, here? In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Facebook is orders of magnitude larger.
- spurgu 5y ago
  To be political, this has more implications on the censorship in general. So what if one censors/distorts more than the other One is supposed to be a news agency, the other is supposed to be an information sharing platform for private individuals. There is some conflict here whenever you decide to pump a specific narrative.
- baryphonic 5y ago
  There have been reports of people banned from Twitter for tweeting e.g. "Rittenhouse did nothing wrong." [0][1] > In your scenario, do I not have any other options for showing my side of the story other than Facebook? I guess you could go with alternative college newspapers? The town crier method? Creating a blog? My point isn't necessarily that you have zero way to attempt to give your side of the story –after all, Rittenhouse's attorneys, people who saw the videos & defended Rittenhouse in public and even the NYT all produced content and were able to spread it among themselves–, but that your enemies have a tech-amplified bullhorn to distribute false claims about you (most of which are "opinion"), which you have been deprived of. In my opinion, it's not hard to see that in the absence of additional rebuttal context, especially the kind that disrupts the original framing, people's first impression will become hardened into "their truth." [0] https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-for-saying-kyle-rittenhouse-did-nothing-wrong-after-his-acquittal/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/twitter-suspended-me-fo... [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle-rittenhouse-tweet-glorifying-violence https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-libertarian-party-kyle...

burlesona 5y ago

Having a strong opinion based on zero knowledge is like American politics 101.

Benjammer 5y ago
I mean, yeah. Doesn't make it reasonable. You can either argue it's unreasonable or argue that Facebook should behave "ethically" here, I don't think you can have both. It seems like people want Facebook to help everyone to have a strong opinion based on zero knowledge, but they want everyone to have the "correct" opinion. I think social media doesn't give people "the wrong opinion," I think it gives people opinions in general when they shouldn't have any.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
I remember a professor with a book he was going to publish in the 1950s and the dock worker who was doing immigration saw it and said “Nobody is gonna read that”. He thought it was very funny that all Americans have an opinion on everything. People also did read it.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

On the flip side facebook absolutely should be able to control what's on their platform as a private company. You can't have it both ways. They have freedom of speech as well as to the right to control their property and do business with whom they choose. I can't stop someone from spouting nonsense on the public sidewalk in front of my store, but if they try it inside my store then I can absolutely kick them out.